tv The O Reilly Factor FOX News August 10, 2016 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
why i climbed the tower. can you see this on my facebook page. go to my facebook page. he was taken to the hospital and he will soon go to jail. stay tuned for updates all night. good night. ♪ ♪ hi, i'm eric bolling in for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. let's get right to our top story. new revelations in the hillary clinton email scandal about 300 pages of emails released tuesday are raising questions about quid pro quo relationships between clinton foundation staffers and hillary clinton's state department. joining us now with reaction from washington tom finton, the president of judicial watch, the group which uncovered these new emails. doug, i mean, we have heard about these emails for most of the day. but, again, doug band, a top clinton foundation official asking the state department for access to lebanese man,
presumably to do business with him and then this man doug band says there is a lot of money involved. this is a million, somewhere between 1 million and 5 million involved that the clinton foundation is going to receive, right? >> yes. the name of the man is mr. chagoury a billionaire. he gave between 1 million to 5 million to the clinton foundation. gave to the clinton global initiative which is also part of the foundation. the clinton foundation's top operative doug band communicates with the clinton top aide at the state department he wants to talk with someone the top guy about lebanon. he says he is important to us. which translates to most normal people as is he important to us because is he a big donor to us. and so people raise the issue as why is it that mrs. clinton who promised to stay out of clinton foundation business almost
immediately the clinton foundation, her top aides are trying to take care of a clinton donor. >> if you read some of these emails it, sounds like this doug band is telling huma abedin in this instance is working teti moment for hillary clinton, telling her what he wants her to do, and she is responding saying yes, i will do that. i will get that done. >> that is the very definition of quid pro quo. especially if you tie in that money, the 1 to 5 million. >> exactly. and abedin and cheryl mills who is also involved in this process being closely associated with the clinton foundation. in fact, abedin later went to work for the clinton foundation while working for the state department at the same time. this is working hand in glove and mrs. clinton promised in order to get a confirmed as secretary of state to keep the clinton foundation out of state department business and those rules and that promise and that ethics agreement was violated almost immediately. >> tom, can you lock down these time lines so people are pushing back saying hey
maybe the time didn't line up right. these things happened from january of 2009, when hillary clinton was secretary of state during her four year term, right? >> yeah, this is all during her term as state department. she was at the state department. doug band talked to her former colleagues at the state department from the clinton foundation, now the state department to get the favor done for mr. chagoury, a favor, someone was seeking a job at the state department. band wanted some follow-up on that and he was told there was follow-up. we don't know if it was a donor or just an associate or friend. once again, if you knew the clinton foundation had a friend at the clinton foundation who were a big donor to the clinton foundation, you got a favor done, which was special access to the upper reaches of hillary clinton's state department. >> all right. one more question. who agreed, who thought it would be a good idea and who agreed, who signed off on huma abedin being able to work not only for the state department but
simultaneously work for the clinton foundation. i don't know if it's a conflict or corruption. someone had to sign off on that, right? >> later we found the document, we thought initially it was signed by hillary clinton because her name is on the form but cheryl mills, her chief of staff signed it for her. so, again, approved at the upper reaches of the state department. >> wow. i mean. >> mills by the way later went to work for the clinton foundation and is now with the foundation after the state department. >> incestual relationships between these two, there is more to come i'm guessing. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> joining us with more on the legal implications on all of this senior judicial analyst judge napolitano. judge, listening to, this shaking our heads going how much -- this is almost textbook quid pro quo. >> if it weren't so tragic it will would almost be laughable that the right hand permits the left hand tone gauge in this. what we have here not only from tom's work and by the way is he a single-handed
dedicated person who exposed all this by filing these freedom of information act lawsuits. what we see here is a regular, consistent pattern of foreign governments, foreign entities and foreign persons coming to the clinton state department and asking for favors. favors she is lawfully aloud to give. an exemption from this rule, permission to do that the opportunity to purchase this. and then after the favor is issued, formally using the formal power of the federal law gives to the secretary of state huge contributions are made to the clinton foundation and in some cases huge speaking fees to bill clinton himself by huge 750,000, $500,000 to former president bill clinton, the husband of the secretary of state for a $30,000 speech. >> even further, these things happened after 2009. >> right. >> bill clinton has not been president for 9 years at that point. >> right. >> yet his speaking fee went from 100 to $200,000 up to 500,000 and above nine years
after he left. happens to coincide with hillary clinton's time 11 of the 13 during her time at the state department. >> of course. because he is not only producing a speech. is he producing some exemption from american federal regulation or some opportunity in america for these people that are hosting this speech that only his wife can give. eric, in my view, this is an easier case for the fbi to prove than the email case was. it's easier for the public to understand. it's easier for a jury to understand. >> circumstantial at this point though? you and i have this idea that yes his fee went up double and triple during her time is there a smoking gun? >> if the doj were serious about, this they would indict some of the people who got these favors and those people would spill the beans on what their negotiations with bill and his people and what their negotiations were with hillary and her people. this is a very, very serious allegation of public corruption. on top of that, the more of
these emails that come out, the more these emails that she swore under oath thee times that she surrendered, the more opportunity there is for a future justice department to prosecuted her for perjury. we know of at least three so far. three swarings under oath everything was surrendered. every day more things show up that she never surrendered. >> you said something that jogged my memory you said doj should open up investigation. should indict some of these people. we just went through the doj say they weren't going to indict hillary because the fbi said the recommendation was not to. is this going to be another james comey yeah we did an investigation, we will turn it over to you doj and loretta lynch saying we're not going to indict? >> i'm sorry to say that i fear that two months ago i did not fear it because jim comey two months ago had that stellar, subpush, pub person lifelong reputation straight shooter. i'm sorry to tell you not new and no longer saying he
no longer has that reputation. >> there are a lot of good fbi agents working. >> there are a lot of good. people in the field. very unhappy with the decisions of the justice department, their bosses, or of director comby. their ultimate boss. not to bring this information to a grand jury. >> and, so, he takes the information, says did a lot of work. i probably have enough here to recommend an indictment by the doj and chooses somehow not to. what's the motivation there? >> to elect hillary clinton president. not on jim comey's part but on the part of the higher ups in the doj. look, this meeting with bill clinton and loretta lynch at the phoenix airport. this was not an accident. everyone said -- like you just said is he honest, straightforward, great lawmaker. is he the top cop in the fbi. what happened -- >> i am as frustrated with you as -- with forgive me. i'm at frustrated as you are
with the state department. we may not know until history is win. >> next on the run down, quite a different view of the hillary clinton email revelations. we'll be back in a moment. you can run an errand. (music playing) ♪ push it real good... (announcer vo) or you can take a joyride. bye bye, errands, we sing out loud here. siriusxm. road happy. no... they feel good? you wouldn't put up with part of a pair of glasses. so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with part of a day? these are not useful. live whole. not part. aleve.
(announcer vo) you can go straight home. (howard stern on radio) welcome to show business. (announcer vo) or you can hear the rest of howard. bababooey! (announcer vo) sorry, confused neighbors, howard's on. siriusxm. road happy. >> new details in the hillary clinton email scandal. author of clinton cash which exposed a lot of questionable dealings around the clinton foundation recently claimed an fbi investigation into the foundation is already underway. >> i can't go into detail, but i can tell you on personal experience that i know the fbi is investigating the clinton foundation. >> they're doing it now? they're doing it today. have they questioned you, if you don't mind me asking? >> i would rather not talk about that. but they are doing it at present. >> joining us now with reaction from washington, former state department
official david do you tufuri. if you did this in the business world what we understand has been done with the clinton foundation, you would go to jail. >> well, i don't know about that, you have to mention specifically what you are talking about. >> here is what i am talking about. >> things related to. >> dropping money on a group to you have access to someone else so you can do a business deal and ingratiot yourself and make money off that business deal. add in that the state department is the broker of this i'm not at the doj but i want to know a lot more about what goes on with the clinton foundation. >> talk about emails. and two, is there anything wrong. either unethical or illegal about these two emails? the answer to both questions is no. these emails show almost nothing that is new. these are the type of things that we already knew were
happening. these are the type of things that comey and the fbi have already locked at and investigated and concluded. there is no problem here. there is nothing illegal about them here. >> so you are saying there is nothing illegal about putting money in a politician's pocket to gain access to a foreign government or foreign corporation that they have business dealings, u.s. business dealings with? that's entirely okay? >> let's be precise here. money did not go no a politician's pocket. >> right. thank you for saying that. that's the important distinction here, right? is it? is it? because you can make a link between the clinton foundation and hillary clinton and bill clinton becoming very, very wealthy. >> well, make that link because nobody has been able to make that link. this is a charitable organization that does charitable activity. >> here's the link. here's the link. >> there is another thing that's very important. >> a lot of their travel, a lot of their expenses, a lot of their housing expenses are paid for in the clinton foundation. it's like saying i'm going to put money in this pocket but i am going to take money
out of this pocket therefore i didn't spend as much money because i still have the money in this other pocket. wrong, you are still spending the money. the pool of money. >> look, the irs form for this charitable organization are public. people have combed through them. you can look at the expenses. that show come up with any that the clintons got reimbursed for travel or anything else that wasn't related to charitable activity. we need to be precise when we talk about this rather than just throw out allegations without precise evidence. again, the fbi has looked at all of this. let's trust the fbi and its director who is above any scrutiny and trust their conclusions about this. >> okay. i will give you another one. ready for this one? during the time that hillary clinton was secretary of state, her husband, bill clinton, nine years removed from office, all of a sudden doubles and triples his speaking fee. now, what would cause that?
>> i mean, president bill clinton is probably one of the most sought after speakers. >> no doubt. >> in the country and the world. you may not like that. >> no, no, no. i'm not disputing that. >> you may not want to attend one of those speaking engagements and listen to him. but there are people willie to pay him. >> i have been to them and find him extremely engaging. when he left the white house and shrouded in some of the scandal with the lewenski situation, i would think he would be more sought after in 2000 than 2009 when he is nine years removed from office. >> i mean, you are asking me to talk about a market that i don't know very well, which is a speaking market. you know, i find you very engaging. i would go to an event where you got paid to be a speaker. >> if my fee went up by triple, i would say, kind of coincided with these emails showing that there was some access provided by my wife, i would say maybe there is some sort of, you know, monetary benefit by myself from her state department job. >> now again, you are
throwing out allegations without precise evidence to support them. you have to look at what evidence we have. now, look at these two new emails because the previous. >> quickly. >> there is a quid pro quo. this is the worst quid pro quo i have ever heard of. in one case the quid pro quo is meeting with an ambassador. >> i have got to go. >> to lebanon which is what the ambassador does. >> david, thank you, i have got to go. next up. donald trump responds to the backlash over the second amendment comment. how big of a deal is the controversy for his campaign? that debate moments away.
second amendment. by the way, if she gets to pick. [crowd booing] >> if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. although the second amendment people maybe there is, i don't know. >> trump has made it clear he was talking about political action, not violence. mrs. clinton isn't buying that explanation and said so today. >> yesterday we
witnessed the latest in a long line of casual comments from donald trump that cross the line. and now his casual inciting of violence. every single one of these incidents shows us that donald trump simply does not have the tampment temperament to be president and commander and chief of the united states. so the stakes have never been higher. >> clinton supporter ought to flashback to 2008 in the
presidential campaign when clinton herself was accused at hinting at violence directed at her primary opponent then senator barack obama. >> my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the california primary somewhere in the middle of june, right? we all remember bobby kennedy was assassinated in june in california. >> joining us now with reaction from dallas trump campaign spokesperson katrina pearson and republican stat vista ashley pratt. ashley i'm going to put you on the spot. i know you are not hillary person but you are anti-trump person. >> that's right. >> i listen to do hillary clinton and in 2008, remember, she was in -- she was up against barack obama and she was losing. this was may and she was losing. and the question was should she drop out in the interest of party unity? she said i'm not dropping out, basically i'm paraphrasing, i'm not dropping out because anything can happen. and then she cited a month later in years back bobby
kennedy was assassinated in the month of june while they were in the month of may. there was still time for something like that to happen. please tell me how is that any different than what donald trump said the other day on the second amendment? >> it's a lot different. i'm not going to defend something that she said as well as i'm not going to defend what he said last night. look, eric, a president's words are incredibly important. they can start words. they are important for global, you know, attitudes towards us and at the same time donald trump is the nominee for president of the united states. so his language is as loose as it is, indefensible, as well as quite frankly pretty dangerous. i think, you know, based off of what he said last night, his comments prove one of two things. either that he is exceedingly reckless or that he is exceedingly unaware of the impact that his words do have on people. so joking, or not, he needs to really clarify what he is saying. this seems to be a pattern with him because of the language that he chooses to use. his rallies, his comments
have all incited violence in the past. we have seen his senior advisor say that hillary clinton belongs in a firing line. i mean, there have been statements made by the campaign that just seem to make it seem like a big joke, quite frankly. >> what about it, katrina? has the candidate decided that he is going to pivot? he doesn't strike me as the type of person that wants to pivot or will pivot but is this the plan? >> well, i believe it was general bob scales who said war is not caused by hot air, which is what the never trumpers in the media would like for you to believe. and i will also note that the media, when these previous controversies, many of them made up by the media well, if the campaign would just respond more quickly and get it out of the way. guess what in the campaign responded immediately clarifying those statements because mr. trump has always talked about supreme court picks and the second amendment because hillary clinton will pick up and put in horrible supreme court justices that will go after the second amendment piece by piece. so this was really nothing new and it was clarified
immediately. so the answer is, no, donald trump is not going to stop talking about the supreme court and he is not going to stop talking about the second amendment. and, look, the media and never trumpers are going to sit there and they are going to wait and look for something right out of the dnc playbook that wikileaks released on page 6, message number one the theme violence. they look for it and try to promote. >> katrina. >> it's not going to work. >> katrina, it's very important to note there one important thing that you said that he had to clarify. he is the tell it like it is candidate, right? why is it every time the campaign, including yourself, has to come out there and clarify what he said? >> because the media, the media will put out there any head lion that they want. we absolutely have to clarify. they're north going to determine our message. >> hold on one second, ashley, hillary clinton had to clarify her comment in 2008 the sound bite we played she had to come back very quickly and say a try and clarify what i intended and didn't intend and then apologized. so, for hillary clinton to
make the comment that donald trump shouldn't be using these words as you point out, she is guilty of the same thing. >> yes. and that doesn't make one okay for the other to do. >> but we're down to two choices, ashley. >> that's right. >> those are the only two choices we have left. >> that's fine, eric, guess what? i think they are both temperamentally unfit. one is reckless and one is dangerous. it goes both ways. they say things that incite people that i don't think are great. here is the issue here, the media held her accountable in 2008 and holding him accountable for things he says. maybe if they spend more time focusing on her emails that whole scandal if he didn't blow up every single thing and open his mouth. he flies off the handle. >> you are assuming he meant violence. i'm going to give this to katrina. go ahead, katrina, am i wrong here? >> no, you're absolutely right. that's my point. you know, as i have said earlier today, donald trump could sneeze and cnn would run a headline for four days saying that donald trump attacked the environment and
then bring on bipartisan e.p.a. reporter saying yes he is trying trying to take out the world. this is the nonsense and absurdity we are dealing with on the media. >> he created. >> we have been talking about espionage, devils and babies, for crying out loud when the real have been supporting unconstitutional wars, arming the enemies, killing tens of thousands over the last few years and we're talking about donald trump being a threat to the united states? are you kidding me? >> katrina, the media would focus on those serious issues if, in fact, your candidate -- >> -- no they wouldn't. >> would go out there and stop saying stupid things. >> ashley, let me ask you, ashley, we will do a segment later in the show talking about how the media treats both candidates. media research center tells us there is five times the amount of coverage of donald trump's second amendment comments than there is about hillary clinton having sadiq mateen the orlando terrorist' father sitting
right behind her and her campaign really took a long time, if they even ever pushed back on having that guy in the audience. >> now, maybe, if his comments weren't as ridiculous as they were and as inflammatory as they were, they would have spent more time or equal time covering it the point is, he is the one doing this to himself. he gets off message and then this is what ends up happening. look, i, as a republican for the last eight years, have joined in that messaging of blaming the liberal media because at times it can be hostile towards republicans. guess what? when someone needs to be called out for their outrageous rhetoric, it is their job to hold people accountable. yes, they should be doing the same thing for trump and clinton. he does himself no favors in saying what he does in flying off the handle. >> quick thought katrina to you. >> the ultimate term we just used maybe if this then that. that's not the case this election cycle. it's not just the media research center. everyone, it's obvious, they are not even trying to hide
it anymore that the media bias that's going on in this campaign. >> your candidate has received significant coverage, katrina, that it has benefited from it? it doesn't matter, ashley, what mr. trump says or does they will find something to talk about. as a republican, you are sitting this helping hillary clinton, someone that actually defended. >> nice spin, kron, i would rather help none of them get elected because they are both dangerous. >> katrina and ashley great debate. thank you very much. directly ahead, new polling shows donald trump losing ground with republican men women. but monica crowley says he can still quickly turn things around. she joins us right after this.
across new york state, from long island to buffalo, from rochester to the hudson valley, from albany to utica, creative business incentives, infrastructure investment, university partnerships, and the lowest taxes in decades are creating a stronger economy and the right environment in new york state for business to thrive. let us help grow your company's tomorrow- today at business.ny.gov i've heard it all. eat more fiber. flax seeds. yogurt. get moving. keep moving. i know! try laxatives. been there, done that. my chronic constipation keeps coming back. i know. tell me something i don't know. vo: linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation
or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain, and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children under six and it should not be given to children six to seventeen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea sometimes severe. if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. talk to your doctor about managing your symptoms proactively with linzess. at safelite, we know how busy life can be. these kids were headed to their first dance recital... ...when their windshield got cracked... ...but they couldn't miss the show. so dad went to the new safelite-dot-com. and in just a few clicks, he scheduled a replacement... ...before the girls even took the stage. safelite-dot-com is the fast, easy way to schedule service anywhere in america! so you don't have to miss a thing. y'all did wonderful!
that's another safelite advantage. (girls sing) safelite repair, safelite replace. in the election 2016 segment tonight, donald trump's standing with republican women and on national security plus the mystery around the deaf of a committee staff. first as you may know 50 republicans signed an open letter this week arguing that trump would put america's security at risk if elected president. former cia and nsa michael hayden is explaining why is he one of the signers. >> we felt duty-bound to issue, frankly, a warning that if he governs the way he talks as a candidate. again, we see no evidence that he won't, he would be quite a danger to an american and global security. look, we have got to call balls and strikes the way we see them. all right? we all felt strongly enough about what we believe to be a clear and present danger that we felt compelled to
say what we said. >> you just called donald trump a clear and present danger. >> well, if he governs in any way close to the language that he has used in the campaign i fear for our future. >> joining us now to analyze fox news contributor monica cawley. we will start on that first one, monica, the 50 g.o.p. officials say they can't handle trump. >> let me start by saying that democrats never ever do this. they always come together to win or at the very least shut up witness bernie sanders and his supporters. republicans constantly indulge in the circular firing squad and it is disgraceful. that's point number one. point number two, most of these people are veterans of the george w. bush administration. take it with a grain of salt. they do have agenda. part of the bipartisan ruling class that helped to get the united states this position of international weakness. where were they for the last, let's say 15 years, eric? they missed 9/11. they took the borders open. they missed the rise of
china. they missed the rise of putin or at least failed to deal with him in an aggressive way to stop marching through crimea and ukraine and so on. these are things that happened before the advent of barack obama. but the responsibility for teeing up the table lies largely with them. by the way, where were they for the four years when hillary was secretary of state? >> that's what i was going to say. a lot of people are saying they are hillary clinton republicans. >> they didn't really register concern for the four years when she was in there and had responsibility over national security. >> she vote ford conflict of wars we got into. she was in favor of all those. >> where were they on benghazi and libya and iraq and iran and russian reset and all of the things that were her portfolio. they didn't raise a lot of issues then. why? oh, right now because they are with her, to coin a phrase. >> is it smart for a general to be weighing in like this on a candidate that might be president now you have on record internationally that a four star general says this guy is dangerous.
>> right. well, look, they can say whatever they want. obviously in america. they're actually teeing up a very powerful argument if trump can make hay of this. which is that these are card carrying members of the bipartisan establishment class, the ruling class. okay, they have been. >> never trump. >> position of influence for a long time. >> yeah. >> so donald trump, if he is smart can make the argument, look, if you want more of same, go with them. knock yourself out. vote for hillary. do whatever you want. if you want real change to bring america back militarily, economically, politically, then i'm your guy because can i guarantee you that that same group of folks that condemns me in this letter won't have a voice in my administration. >> donald trump has another argument to make and to win. republican women. how does he turn it around? >> he has got a very difficult time. look, any republican presidential candidate was going to face a tough, tough battle with women because the traditional gender gap has favored democrats for a very long time and the
democrats just put up their first female candidate for president. so he was going to have a challenge. his gender gap has even been bigger. i think going forward what he needs to do is tease out his broader message and say, look, all of these issues are women's issues. strong economic growth. putting americans back to work. rebuilding our military. defeating islamic terror. >> jobs. >> these are issues that everybody cares about, regardless of your gender. most women i know don't vote on the basis of their private parts. they vote on the future of the country. >> important to women, wages. wages have been stagnant for eight years. this is the area he could say hey, we're going to figure out a way to get wages up, not a bad way to do that. third topic, one of my favorite topics of the day. julian assange now says that he has -- he may have more leaks, more whistle blowers. now, there was a staff who was killed. a dnc staff who was murdered in d.c. people are trying to make the link between this dnc staff seth rich and
wikileaks. your thoughts? >> well, we don't know. obviously what the facts are. i found it curious that mr. assange spoke on dutch television yesterday and allude to do that fact. >> let's listen to. >> whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. the 27-year-old works for the dnc was shot in the back, murdered just two weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in washington. so. >> that was just a robbery, i believe, wasn't it? >> no. there is no finding. so,. >> what are you suggesting? what are you suggesting? >> i'm suggesting that our sources take risks and they are -- they become concerned to see things occurring like that. >> all right. so, let me set it up a little bit. so this guy was walking down the street. he's shot in the back. is he not robbed. he still has his watch, his phone, and his wallet.
>> right. nothing was taken. >> there wasn't a robbery. they weren't even trying to get his information. this was a hit. >> law enforcement went in and the original report was that it was a robbery. but now, in view of mr. assange's comments and some other information, now they are taking a second look at this and saying not so fast. maybe, in fact, it wasn't a robbery. maybe there was something more sinister here. wikileaks does work in the shadows. so we don't know for sure so for mr. assange to suggest somehow that this young man, mr. rich, was an informant of theirs, i don't see why he would suggest that unless it may, in fact, be true. the question going forward, i think for mrs. clinton, for everybody here, is what else is out there? who has it? whose life may be in danger. >> episode of homeland. >> maybe worse in some ways. >> so i was talking to my friend nate. i told him about this story and nate said d.c. is dangerous. dangerous? he was shot in the back and he kept all his money. there is something more here. >> yeah. look, where there is smoke, there is fire.
i think in rich's parents want a fuller investigation as they should well be entitled to. the question is how might this affect the election? where there will an october surprise? who is in control of those emails? who has mrs. clinton's email inventory? the russians? wikileaks? no one knows. >> monica, leave it here. hear that, nate, where there is smoke there is fire. lots of smoke right now. how the media played up trump's second amendment controversy and played down the hillary clinton rally where the father of the orlando shooter showed up. the difference will stun you. don't miss it.
gary, gary, gary... i am proud of you, my man. making simple, smart cash back choices... with quicksilver from capital one. you're earning unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. like on that new laptop. quicksilver keeps things simple, gary. and smart, like you! and i like that. i guess i am pretty smart. don't let that go to your head, gary. what's in your wallet?
...one of many pieces in my life. so when my asthma symptoms kept coming back on my long-term control medicine. i talked to my doctor and found a missing piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. breo opens up airways to help improve breathing for a full 24 hours. breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death from asthma problems and may increase the risk of hospitalization in children and adolescents. breo is not for people whose asthma is well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop breo and prescribe a different asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. do not take breo more than prescribed. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ask your doctor if 24-hour breo
could be a missing piece for you. see if you're eligible for 12 months free at mybreo.com. thanks for staying with us, i'm eric bolling in for bill o'reilly and in the personal story segment tonight, the media's coverage of donald trump's comments about hillary clinton and second amendment supporters according to a study by the media research center, a conservative outfit, the morning and evening network newscasts devoted more than five times the amount of coverage to the trump controversy than the story of the orlando terrorist father showing up at a clinton rally. joining us now from virginia, the media research center tim graham four times
the amount to five times the amount. does that mean the coverage continues to be that skewed, that biased? >> yeah, it's getting worse as we go along. in particular, cbs is really standing out here because they have 14 minutes on trump to 1 on hillary. so, they are really skewing the whole thing. it just shows you a general election pattern that they always have, which is take whatever the gaffe is, hike binders full of women and completely exaggerate it and hyperinflate it. with the democrats it's like what story? >> yeah. so, do you find that it's full of consistent along all medium? broadcast medium versus network and versus cable? >> yeah. generally the pattern is the same all the way across. what's really interesting sometimes is when you think that newspapers are going to be more in-depth and offer you more on some of these hillary scandals and then
what you find when you go back and look at it is no. for example, the networks totally jumped all over kaiser khan's speech to the democratic convention. the networks ignored patricia smith. you look at the newspapers, you find the same thing. the newspaper coverage of the republican convention barely noticed patricia smith and completely exaggerated the kaiser khan speech. this is what you find whether it's print, whether it's broadcast, whether it's cable news of the liberal persuasion, you're going to get this overwhelming slant that basically always suggests to you this election should be over already. that's the kind of music and lyrics they like to provide in general election season. >> it sounds like it's both. not only are they highlighting a negative that they perceive as a negative story for donald trump so, yes, they are blowing that up big which newscasts tend to do that but, also, they are burying what has been perceived by many as negative story for hillary clinton. so they -- that's maybe more
egregious. >> well, and clearly these are two candidates who are both unpopular. both of them are perceived as not tremendously honest. i think hillary is presented as more dishonest. and the networks, again, present her as utterly incontroversial. you know, they like to describe trump as abnormal and hillary is normal. hillary in no way is normal. she is the wife of an impeached disbarred president, you know, with train loads of corruption. and they are presenting her as normal in this election. and so many americans just aren't buying that. and they are not buying the media bias. >> tim, this isn't new though. there has been a media bias and skew going on for a really long time. >> exactly. and this is what we're trying to say to people. you know, jim routenberg had a commentary in the front page of the "new york times" on monday. this is the "new york times" line: trump is so uniquely horrible that we all have to ensure his defeat in the
news media but the funny part was they pretended this has never been done before. we have never skewed the general election before this is just what they do and it's still deplorable. >> tim, we will leave it right there. thank you very much. straight ahead, a sickening crime in philadelphia after illegal immigrant is released by police, now he is charged with raping a child. the full story next. for lower back pain sufferers, the search for relief often leads here.
introducing drug-free aleve direct therapy. a high intensity tens device that uses technology once only in doctors' offices. for deep penetrating relief at the source. new aleve direct therapy. working my canister off to clean and shine... and give proven protection... against fading and aging. he won't use those copycat wipes. hi...doing anything later? the quiet type. i like that. armor all original protectant. don't be dull.
charges in 2014 over another incident, i.c.e. made a detainer request with philadelphia officials to take him into custody and deport him yet again. but philadelphia defied that request after the criminal charges were dropped and let the man go free. in a sickening development, he was arrested again late last month, accused of raping a 13-year-old or under child. joining us with reaction, pat toomey, who has helped lead the charge against ending sanctuary city policies. thank you for joining us, senator. for a long time, you know, bill o'reilly has been pushing the kate steinle story, kate's law, which i think you were involved with as well. tell us what is the latest. this is a sanctuary city in addition to the kate's law legislati legislation. >> you know, eric, you really need both. you need both because kate's law makes all the sense in the world. it says after you have come here repeatedly, illegally, you have been deported and you have committed violent crimes, you're
subject to a stiff statutory minimum. the reason you need the sanctuary cities law to end sanctuary cities is you need to be able to grab these guys. what happened in philadelphia, this appalling disaster, this monster raped a child and he never should have been here. and the folks at i.c.e. didn't want him here. they had asked the police department of philadelphia to hold this guy until they could send an agent to pick him up and deport him. the police department, their hands were tied by a very bad policy that forbids them from cooperating with federal immigration officials. it's terrible, and it's a security risk for all of us. >> i think that's an important distinction to highlight, the fact that the local law enforcement agencies want to turn these bad guys over to i.c.e., but they're told not to because of the politics. >> absolutely, eric. i don't know a single police officer who supports these sanctuary city policies. they know these guys are bad guys. look, remember, this is the obama administration. they're not actually in the
business of like wholesale deportation of illegal immigrants. the only ones they want to deport are people who are committing these violent crimes or suspected of committing violent crimes or being terrorists. and when a city like philadelphia refuses to cooperate, even in those circumstances, we get exactly this kind of situation. and by the way, this monster, who is apparently raped a child, this could happen again. if he makes bail or if for some reason the case against him falls apart and they have to release him, according to the current policy in philadelphia, they will not inform i.c.e. they will just release this guy onto the streets of philadelphia. this is terrible. we have to end this. >> you mentioned something right here that i didn't think of and realize. is there a distinction for terror if they're suspected at terror, at that point, can they be turned over to the feds? >> under the policies in philadelphia, and philadelphia is not alone, but it has one of the most extreme versions of this, even if the i.c.e.
officials suspect the illegal immigrant in detention, they suspect him of being a member of a terrorist organization, the city -- >> how is that possible, senator? how is it possible that a local -- it's got to be a lawmaker will tep the cops, look the other way. we may have a terrorist in our cell right here, and we're not going to turn him over to i.c.e. we're going to let him free in our street? >> it's unbelievable, but that is the city government's policy. it's by executive order of the mayor. the previous mayor -- by the way, there's bipartisan opposition to this. the previous mayor, michael nutter, rescinded this policy, put an end to it. the new mayor then restated it. the former mayor and governor ed rendell opposes the policy. the obama administration even opposes it. there are communities across america and sadly including philadelphia, that nevertheless, refuse to cooperate. >> senator, this doesn't -- your legislation doesn't get through the senate, we have to go, i don't have a lot of time. where's the hold-up. how many more signatures do you
need? >> we've had a vote. the problem is we don't have democrat support for it. i held all but one republican on my bill, to end sanctuary cities and we picked up only two democrats. we need 60. the democrats filibustered it. so we weren't able to pass this. >> you're about five short or so. senator, we leave it there. very important story. thank you very much. still to come, just when we thought the american olympic athletes couldn't be more dominant, they blow away all our expectations. back in a moment.
there's something out there. that can be serious, even fatal to infants. it's whooping cough, and people can spread it without knowing it. understand the danger your new grandchild faces. talk to your doctor or pharmacist about a whooping cough vaccination today. 19 olympic gold medals would be good enough for most countries, but if you're michael phelps. it's nothing more than another record to beat. last night in rio, he confronted his rival in the 200-meter butterfly. >> chad is gaining on michael phelps. he's running second right now.
michael phelps, getting that olympic gold. 15 meters left. michael phelps is going to do it again. >> he's got it! >> and he didn't even medal. phelps says, let's hear it. look who's back on top in the 200 fly. >> a short time later, phelps helped lead the u.s. men's team to gold in the 4 x 200 meter freestyle relay. giving phelps his 21st gold medal. the guy is superhuman, and he still has three more chances left to smash his own record. go get them, because america.
that's it for us tonight. i'm eric bolling in for bill o'reilly. please remember, the spin stops here because we're looking out for you. breaking tonight, the focus back on hillary clinton's multi-billion family charity reigniting lingering questions over blurred lined between the clintons' public service and their own personal gain. welcome to "the kelly file." i'm sandra smith, in for megyn kelly tonight. first, unconfirmed new reports the obama justice department may have spiked an fbi request to investigate the clinton foundation. fox news is digging on this, but so far, the doj will neither confirm nor deny this report. also tonight, a conservative watchdog group forcing the release of dozens of previously unseen e-mails from former secretary of state clinton's private server. these